What he's found is that the phrase "gun control" is much less common than it was years ago, while "gun rights" and "Second Amendment" have grown steadily. What does it mean? Nate Silver guesses — or purports to guess — quite badly (I'd say):

The change in rhetoric may reflect the increasing polarization in the debate over gun policy. “Gun control,” a relatively neutral term, has been used less and less often. But more politically charged phrases, like “gun violence” and “gun rights,” have become more common.

If "gun control" is avoided, it's because those who would like to push it believe the public doesn't like it! It's not that we used to be more neutral and have become more politically charged.

Those who advocate greater restrictions on gun ownership may have determined that their most persuasive argument is to talk about the consequences of increased access to guns — as opposed to the weedy debate about what rights the Second Amendment may or may not convey to gun owners.

Weedy debate? As if those who speak in terms of constitutional rights are in the weeds. This presentation of rights is quite disgusting: 1. People believe in their rights, and it's that real belief that gives life and endurance to our rights; 2. This belief in gun rights endured over time, even as elite legalists largely believed they were just about nothing (so it's not an abstruse, academic topic but nearly the opposite); and 3. The Second Amendment doesn't "convey" rights it refers to a right and declares that it "shall not be infringed."

There was a time when rights were real to liberals. Now, oh, let's not talk about some text that may or may not transmit who knows what to us.

Why would somebody like Nate Silver be interested in the Constitution? It's just an impediment to implementation of the progressive template.

As is evident from, for example, garage mahal's comment about teachers on the previous thread, the Connecticut massacre isn't a tragedy, it's a political opportunity. Similarly, the Constitution isn't a brilliant governing document, it is an obstruction.

I really can't find anything in the article that I would find disgusting. I wouldn't say that describing the difficulty in specifying exactly what the 2nd amendment protects as "weedy" reveals any contempt for the Constitution.

Gun safety is treating every gun like it is loaded and never pointing at a thing you don't want to shoot, not government policy. I don't even -own- or -want- to own a gun, and I know that. How Orwellian.

Fitzgerald said show me a hero and I'll show you a tragedy. Well, show me a tragedy, and I'll show you a scapegoat. The NRA is being set up as the villian of this piece. I don't think that's fair, but you will hear that narrative from all sides in coming weeks. The 2nd amendment supporters will come up with their own list of scapegoats, but this narrative will not be discussed except among themselves......I do think gun ownership played a part in this tragegy. To pretend it doesn't is wrong. It's like liberals claiming that torture doesn't work. There are arguments for and against torture, but you cannot fairly argue that torture is an ineffectual way of gaining information. You cannot fairly argue that gun rights did not play a part in this tragedy. Perhaps there should be some restrictions placed on gun ownership of those who are guardians of the mentally ill. I don't know how enforceable such a restriction is, but it's a place to start.....The liberals are forever expanding the parameters of the 1st & 4th amendments from the judge's stand. There's no reason to think that gun rights will not similarly be curtailed. I don't think it will happen at the ballot box, but, as we have seen, that's usually more a speedbump than a road block when it comes to the liberal agenda.

And the language thing.....yes, one thing the left is good at (and perhaps the right, but being a righty, I notice the other sides good use of the language).

Gun control is now "common sense gun safety"? Will, changing the 3,000 year old definition of marriage is "civil rights". Tax increases are "new revenues". High income earners are "the rich" (confusing balance sheet wealth and income statement income), yet trust fund babies aren't. Abortion is now "equal rights for women", even though the father can't choose abortion, yet still has to pay child support.

Let's also deconstruct Silver's final sentence: "There may be some voters who think that the Constitution provides broad latitude to own and carry guns – even if the consequences can sometimes be tragic."

Well, yes, there surely are "some voters" who think that, just as there are some voters who think pretty much anything. But more to the point, it's not just "some voters" who think the Constitution provides broad latitude to own and carry guns, it's the frigging Supreme Court of the United States. It's the law of the land. Would Silver write that some voters think that the Constitution does not allow states to maintain a system of separate but equal schools for African-American children? Not bloody likely.

Adding "rights" to a noun, changes how the public feels about something. I feel that it would be fair to say that rights (guns, drug, marriage, reproduction, etc.) being granted across the country currently are being granted to minorities who want this right. It makes the minority who would use it a majority in the name of freedom. The amount of people who physically own guns may have drastically lowered to a minority, so changing it, will garner support of conservatives, and maybe some liberals who do not own a gun. The article has a lovely chart showing a peak of the term "gun violence". This suggests a shift in the thinking of the people who do not own guns. A minority of Americans use these controversial rights, but it is rhetoric, which is affected by both positive and negative wording, that affects the majority of Americans who have no intension of using the specific right.

I like how, because Nate Silver got the election results right this last election, he is suddenly the go to guy for things outside of his area of expertise.He is an "expert" trotted out as the "expert" to pretend that there is a consensus shift because Nate Silver mentioned it an he of course knows what he's talking about.Suddenly he's hte oracle at delphi. Tell me Nate, should I hold onto Apple stock and expect a rebound or is it going ot bottom furhter. And when will that bottom be? Surely Nate should know.

"There was a time when rights were real to liberals. Now, oh, let's not talk about some text that may or may not transmit who knows what to us."

Were they real? Seriously. If something is a "right" yesterday but not today, is a "right" for me but not for thee, then was it ever truly a "right"? Or something liberals want, and calling it a "right" is simply a way to give it moral and rhetorical force?

Let's also deconstruct Silver's final sentence: "There may be some voters who think that the Constitution provides broad latitude to own and carry guns – even if the consequences can sometimes be tragic."

Yes, it's a revealing statement. It implies that rights aren't really rights "if the consequences can sometimes be tragic". But of course all rights can sometimes have tragic consequences, because people have free will. If the government may do anything and everything in the name of preventing "tragic consequences", then we have no rights at all.

There was a time when rights were real to liberals. Now, oh, let's not talk about some text that may or may not transmit who knows what to us.

This is the defining characteristic of liberalism. Rights are bestowed upon us by a benign state. When I learned to mistrust the motives and actions of the state regarding rights I was born with, I became a conservative.

It was the gun issue that woke me up to this reality. I've always enjoyed collecting and shooting firearms, but this has become increasingly problematic in the enlightened state of California. In monumental ignorance statists pass gun laws that have absolutely no effect beyond disarming the law-abiding, but never bother to analyze their effectiveness.

I'm reading a HuffPo article and some of the comments are truly frightening. One user refers to the GOP as an "infection", another wants to ban the GOP. Nobody in the comment section decried those sentiments.

The Second Amendment doesn't "convey" rights it refers to a right and declares that it "shall not be infringed."

This thought is fully supported by the Declaration of Independence:

...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...

That the right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights indicates that it is considered an "unalienable right". Democrats/liberals don't truly believe in rights, just issues they can manipulate to give themselves more power over you.

Not yet. Purchasing a handgun requires a Handgun Safety Certificate with a $25 fee. Detachable magazines with more than ten-round capacity are banned. "Assault rifles", as arbitrarily defined by the Attorney General, are banned. .50 BMG rifles are banned. There is a two-week waiting period for the purchase of any firearm.

Most disturbing is the continued decimation of places to shoot. I live in a mixed rural area-- my backyard borders on Cleveland National Forest-- but I have to drive over seventy miles to shoot legally. Twenty years ago I could literally walk to a shooting area from my home.

Every one of these restrictions is calculated to reduce gun ownership by making it just too much of a pain in the ass. No metric is ever applied to judge whether these restrictions reduce crime, because that is not their objective.

We can't let the progressives(LIBERALS) do what they did with pro-choice(PRO-ABORTION)-- gun control is gun control is gun control. Don't let newspeak run the dialogue.

Tyrone - well, CA is right across the border from NV (where you can rent machine guns) and AZ (where the only use for a concealed carry permit is reciprocity with other states), both of which have much more reasonable gun laws. Won't help with target practice, but is utilized by some to evade some of California's more draconian purchase requirements.

Gun dealers in Las Vegas, the only place I've checked, will not sell a gun to a holder of a California driver's license, even when the gun in question is legal in California. I believe it is the same attitude I've encountered on gun-purchase websites such as GunsAmerica-- many dealers simply refuse to do business with anyone in California. I assume they think they will punish "California", as if such a thing were possible. To me it is vindictive and offensive to those who would be their natural allies.

"Maguro said... Let's also deconstruct Silver's final sentence: "There may be some voters who think that the Constitution provides broad latitude to own and carry guns – even if the consequences can sometimes be tragic."

Yes, it's a revealing statement. It implies that rights aren't really rights "if the consequences can sometimes be tragic". But of course all rights can sometimes have tragic consequences, because people have free will. If the government may do anything and everything in the name of preventing "tragic consequences", then we have no rights at all."

All rights can have tragic consequences. For example, the people might re-elect a SCOAMF. That's the price we pay for living in a free society.

Isn't this just another example of the trouble with the presumption that the modern scientific method is the only means of finding truth? Afer all, the modern scientific method studies observations, correlations, and calculations. It can suggest that imput a yields output b. But it cannot decide what to study. And it cannot decide what is a good or bad outcome.

The main myth in modern liberalism is that all right thinking people have the same "values" (values being a mathmatical term that replaced morals or virtues). If that's the case, the amorality of the modern scientific method is not a problem for policy makiers--for we the experts know what ends we wish to pursue. But once we admit that reasonable people truly can disagree about right and wrong, the game is up.

This problem is, I suspect, part of the reason why so many liberals get so angry about policy debates. They believe that their values are the best and yet, given their epistemology, they cannot, in fact, defend their values except by reference to the idea that "it what smart people think."

"Listen up. People who adorn their political rhetoric with this stuff ("Oh brother. The disgusting. Outrage. Personal offense.")aren't to be trusted. Don't be manipulated by that stuff. Doesn't matter whose side they're on."

That works for you because your political opponents, the conservatives, are mostly honest and honorable people. It does not work for us because our political opponents, the lefties, tend to be despicable and/or stupid. Let's provide some examples. Dems routinely cheat in elections and fight measures to keep elections honest. Dems routinely use the courts to accomplish what they cannot do legislatively. Dems routinely buy votes by using government action to give preferential treatment to dem privileged interest groups (PIGs). Dems in the media and academia routinely act in a politically partisan way, putting politics way above their profession. Dems are ruining our country and should be passionately opposed. What you propose is a form of politically correct speech and, as usual with pc, is just an attempt to silence your opponents.

I'm not surprised that the left is trying to tweak their gun control language, aided by their courtiers in the media. Abortion is the prime example: as I've said for years, everybody agrees that "abortion" is an ugly word. So, how does NPR (for example) use it? Well, those in favor of abortion are called "pro-choice," their preferred term. Those who oppose abortion are called "opponents of abortion rights," rather than their preferred term of "pro-life." Choice is a happy word -- who doesn't want more choice? And pro -- more choices!! Happy, happy! Wheras the right are "opponents of rights." They hate rights! BOOOO! And best of all we get to stick the big scarlet "A" word ON THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT, NOT THOSE WHO SUPPORT IT! So expect similar spin for gun control -- they can't call 'em "advocates of gun rights," because advocates of rights are good ... and "opponents of gun rights" because ... well, what NPR contributor is against rights? It will be interesting to see how this spins.

What is neutral about the term "gun control?" It is a code word for disarming citizens.

You might claim that the term is synonymous with firearms safety, i.e., things like keeping the muzzle of a weapon pointed down range, etc. However, gun control is an idea the Left began using as a means to limit the rights of individuals and attack the US Constitution.

Why is it the right to privacy (for the mentally ill) trumps the right to bear (and own) arms?

Let's have a discussion, Nate Silver, about mental illness and how it is handled in the US.

You'll find discussing mental illness is a minefield and the "rights" of the mentally ill often make treating them appropraitely extremely difficult ... which means if a certain very small number get firearms, there can be tragiuc consequences.

Right to bear and own arms? Ha.

So rather than deal with a small number (the mentally ill with violent history) versus the draconian control issue of outlawing weapons for responsible citizens in the US -- which gets the progs attention?

I think it would be highly instructive to discuss when that time ended. I see the process starting around the time of Herbert Croly, and ending in the 1960's when the hippies heralded the end of genuine liberalism.